Claude Fable 5.1 vs MiniMax M3

Claude Fable 5.1 is served by invitation. Its figures below are the live rates, but calls need a workspace grant first; ask us for access before you build on this comparison.

vs

Which one, when

minimax-m3 is far cheaper on input and output and accepts video with a much larger output budget. Choose claude-fable-5-1 when structured outputs or an existing premium Anthropic workflow justify the higher cost.

Benchmarks

MiniMax M3: the vendor has not published benchmark scores.

Above averageNo peer higherClaude Fable 5.119 / 213 / 21
Claude Fable 5.1 MiniMax M3 other models measured peer average ★ no peer scored higher
DeepSWE 1.1
67.4%
N/A
OSWorld 2.0 partial
80.7%
N/A
HealthBench Professional
58.1%
N/A
Terminal-Bench-Science 0.1
52.6%
N/A
GPQA Diamond
93.7%
N/A
AutomationBench
31.4%
N/A
Chartography with tools
88.4%
N/A

Vendor-published: Alibaba (Qwen) Anthropic ByteDance DeepSeek Google MiniMax Moonshot OpenAI Tencent Z.ai

Pricing

Claude Fable 5.1 MiniMax M3 Δ
Input / 1M tokens $10 $0.3 33×
Output / 1M tokens $50 $1.2 42×
Cache read / 1M tokens $0.25 $0.06 4.2×
Cache write 1.25x (5m) / 2x (1h) no separate charge -

Rates from the live catalogue at build time; each model page carries the current rate card.

Where they sit · input price per 1M tokens across all 80 chat models on this billing unit (log scale)

Claude Fable 5.1 · $10 MiniMax M3 · $0.3
$0.05 · Qwen3 VL Flash $30 · GPT-5.4 Pro

Capabilities

Claude Fable 5.1 MiniMax M3
Tool calling yes yes
Thinking control always on configurable
Structured output yes -
Prompt caching explicit (you mark the prefix) implicit (automatic)
Cache lifetime 5m default, 1h option not published
Minimum cached prefix 1,024 tokens 512 tokens

Specs

Claude Fable 5.1 MiniMax M3
Input modalities text image text image video
Output modalities text text
Released 2026-09-01 2026-06-01
Knowledge cutoff 2026-06 -
Context window 1M 1M
Max output 128K 524K
Thinking parameter output_config.effort (thinking is adaptive-only and always on)
  • thinking.type
  • reasoning_split
Accepted values
effort
  • low
  • medium
  • high
  • xhigh
  • max
thinking.type
  • adaptive
  • disabled
reasoning_split
  • boolean
Default

thinking always on (adaptive)

effort
  • high
adaptive: thinking on, with the model deciding when extra reasoning helps

Specs are transcribed from each vendor’s documentation; a row a vendor does not publish is left out rather than inferred. Full sources: Claude Fable 5.1 · MiniMax M3

One prompt, both models, measured through the gateway

PROMPT Explain to a CFO, in exactly three sentences, why our LLM bill doubled after we enabled reasoning. CHECK exactly 3 sentences

Claude Fable 5.1 passed · 3 sentences

When we enabled reasoning, the model started generating a long chain of internal "thinking" tokens before producing each answer, and we're billed for those tokens at the same output rate even though users never see them. In practice, that hidden reasoning often runs several times longer than the visible response, so the total tokens per request roughly doubled while the number of requests stayed flat. The upside is measurably better accuracy on complex tasks, so the right conversation is whether that quality gain justifies the cost—and if not, we can restrict reasoning to the workflows that actually need it rather than turning it on globally.

out 186 tok latency 3.2 s

MiniMax M3 passed · 3 sentences

Reasoning models don't just answer — they first generate extensive internal "thinking" tokens to work through the problem step-by-step, and you're billed for all of those tokens even though users never see them. A query that previously cost ~200 tokens may now cost 2,000–10,000 once reasoning is enabled, multiplying per-query spend by roughly 5–50x while the visible output stayed the same size — that's the doubling. The lever is tuning: cap reasoning effort on simple queries, cache the reasoning traces, and reserve the full reasoning model for only your hardest 10–20% of requests, which typically restores 60–80% of the savings.

out 764 tok (+629 thinking) latency 3.5 s

Instruction following (exactly three sentences, so countable), audience shaping (CFO register), and the hidden-thinking billing gap the token meters below expose.

PROMPT This function is supposed to return the longest run of consecutive equal items, but callers report it is off by one on single-element inputs and misses runs that end at the last index. Fix it and explain the bug in one paragraph. CHECK fix passes tests

Claude Fable 5.1 passed · 8/8 cases

```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): cur = cur + 1 if xs[i] == xs[i - 1] else 1 best = max(best, cur) return best ``` The bug is that `cur` counts *matches between adjacent elements* rather than *elements in the run*: it starts at 0 and only increments when `xs[i] == xs[i-1]`, so a run of length k produces a count of k−1. That's why a single element returns 0 instead of 1, and why every other run also comes out one short — the "misses runs at the end" reports are the same off-by-one seen on inputs like `[1, 2, 2]`, where the trailing run of length 2 is reported as 1 (the original code does update `best` inside the loop, so end-of-list runs aren't actually skipped, just undercounted). […]

out 882 tok (+507 thinking) latency 3.4 s

MiniMax M3 passed · 8/8 cases

The bug is that the loop starts at index 1 and treats `cur` as the number of *equal transitions* rather than the run length, so a run of *k* consecutive equal items is reported as `k − 1`, and a single-element list (where the loop body never executes) returns 0 instead of 1. A correct version tracks the actual run length by seeding `cur = 1` and resetting it to 1 (not 0) on a mismatch: ```python def longest_run(xs): if not xs: return 0 best = cur = 1 for i in range(1, len(xs)): if xs[i] == xs[i - 1]: cur += 1 else: cur = 1 if cur > best: best = cur return best ``` Now `[5]` returns `1`, `[1,1,1]` returns `3`, and a run like `[1,2,2,2]` that ends at the last index is correctly captured as `3` because `cur` is updated before `best` is compared on every iteration, including the final one.

out 845 tok (+596 thinking) latency 3.5 s

Whether the fix is actually correct (runnable), explanation density, and token efficiency on a bounded task.

PROMPT Extract a JSON object with fields {company, quarter, revenue_usd_m, growth_pct, guidance} from this text. Use null for anything not stated; add no other fields. CHECK valid JSON, schema exact

Claude Fable 5.1 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

```json { "company": "Meridian Robotics", "quarter": "Q3 (September quarter)", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": 11, "guidance": null } ``` Notes on judgment calls (not part of the object): - **revenue_usd_m**: The text says "412 for the topline" but never states the currency or that the figure is in millions; it's also on a constant-currency basis and prefaced with "call it," so it's approximate. If you want strict literalism, this should be `null`. - **growth_pct**: "Eleven and change" means slightly above 11%; the exact figure isn't given. - **quarter**: "September quarter" is Q3 on a calendar basis, consistent with the reference to a pending Q4 close. - **guidance**: Explicitly withheld, so `null`.

out 633 tok (+349 thinking) latency 3.8 s

MiniMax M3 passed · 5/5 fields, guidance null

```json { "company": null, "quarter": "Q3", "revenue_usd_m": 412, "growth_pct": null, "guidance": null } ```

out 1002 tok (+955 thinking) latency 3.6 s

Schema obedience (no invented fields), hallucination pressure (guidance is explicitly withheld), and structured-output path differences.

PROMPT Write a 120-word product announcement for an API gateway feature that caches prompts across providers. Forbidden words: "seamless", "unlock", "game-changer", "revolutionize", "empower". Exactly one sentence must be a question. CHECK 120 words, 0 banned words

Claude Fable 5.1 passed · 121 words, 0 banned, 1 question

**Introducing Cross-Provider Prompt Caching for the Gateway.** Starting today, your API gateway can cache prompts once and reuse them across OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and any other provider you route to. Long system instructions, retrieval context, and few-shot examples are stored at the gateway layer, so switching models no longer means paying to resend the same tokens. Why send the same 8,000-token preamble to three different vendors when you could send it once? Our cache normalizes prompt segments, fingerprints them, and serves matching prefixes from memory before the request ever reaches an upstream API. Early customers report token costs falling by 30 to 60 percent on high-volume workloads, with median latency dropping alongside. Available today on all Team and Enterprise plans.

out 1722 tok (+1463 thinking) latency 2.9 s

MiniMax M3 passed · 121 words, 0 banned, 1 question

Introducing PromptCache, our intelligent caching layer for the API gateway. Tired of paying twice for identical requests? The feature stores prompt-response pairs across every connected provider, returning cached results instead of hitting costly endpoints. Deployment requires only a single configuration flag, and semantic similarity detection happens automatically. Latency drops up to 70% on repeated traffic while costs follow the same downward curve. Developers access detailed cache hit metrics, eviction logs, and provider breakdowns through the dashboard. Whether routing to OpenAI, Anthropic, or local models, every cached token saves time and money. The cache respects TTL policies, supports manual purging, and encrypts stored content. Available today for Pro and Enterprise tiers—enable PromptCache on existing endpoints and watch inference bills shrink immediately.

out 2808 tok (+2656 thinking) latency 6.0 s

Constraint obedience (word budget, banned-word list, the single question), style fingerprint, and length control.

Switch between them with one line

Both ids are in every tab below; the highlighted pair of lines is the only edit. Same endpoint, same key, same request shape.

from openai import OpenAI

client = OpenAI(
    base_url="https://synthorai.io/v1",
    api_key="sk-syn-...",
)

resp = client.chat.completions.create(
    model="claude-fable-5-1",
    # model="minimax-m3",  # uncomment this line, comment the one above
    messages=[{"role": "user", "content": "Summarize this diff"}],
    reasoning_effort="medium",
)
print(resp.choices[0].message.content)

Get your API key →

FAQ

Which is cheaper, Claude Fable 5.1 or MiniMax M3?

MiniMax M3 is cheaper on the "Input / 1M tokens" row ($0.3 vs $10, 33× apart). Other rows may point the other way; the table above carries the full rate card, and real cost depends on your mix.

Can I A/B test Claude Fable 5.1 against MiniMax M3 without two integrations?

Yes. Both are served through the same OpenAI-compatible endpoint with one API key. Switching is a one-line change to the model id, so you can route a fraction of traffic to each and compare bills directly.

Do Claude Fable 5.1 and MiniMax M3 support prompt caching?

Yes. Both bill cache reads below their input rate, so warm-prefix workloads cost less than the list rates suggest. The exact cache-read rows are in the pricing table above.

Related comparisons

From our measured studies